Ouch, dude. He made a sincere suggestion - he wasn't bragging or being arrogant. Isn't it true that a petition is a failure until it isn't? They accumulate numbers...and until then, they spread the word. There is no "how is your petition going?" - it either has or hasn't reached critical mass. Either way you look at it, it's a better method of persuasion than random posts. Why be so disdainful and sarcastic?

Well said, Sol. I can get all the sarcasm and derision I want from my GF at home! I come here to get away from that.

For the most part I like the humor, expertise and general discussion on AI. However, I really dislike the dismissive comments.

I see 74 members logged in, and 728 guests? Perhaps there is a reason so many guests don't become members?

I use Logic Pro a lot and need to decide if the i7 is worth the upgrade. Also, is it strange that the 15" and 17" MBPs come with i7 default and the iMacs are an additional updgrade? is there any particular reason for that?

Anything a bit more in depth than "they're faster" would be tremendously appreciated.

They just took an iOS game, from the looks of it. Remember iOS rules the roost now... They didn't even bother using an actual OSX game screenshot. At best even if it is an OSX game it is clearly a basic port of an iOS game.

Don't get me wrong, I love Apple, own an etc. etc. but this is quite uncharacteristic.

Come to think of it, look at that fence texture and the license plate. This is clearly Asphalt 6 for Mac or something like that.

I'm pretty shocked right now. This is Apple's marketing and commitment to gaming and GPU horsepower on a Mac? An iOS game on the fastest desktop Apple makes? Playing an iOS game on a 27" with a very high-end GPU?

The sad part is most people won't care anyways. I almost missed it myself, having been so used to seeing iPad posters and marketing graphics.

You right, the game got ported from the mobile offerings they have (gameloft) and optimized for desktop. If you go to your app store and then to the games/racing you will find "Asphalt 6: Adrenaline" that sells for $6.99.

I agree with many that they could use other game image that shows the graphics capabilities of the new cards. Maybe Prey or go plain with a windows game like CoDBO or BF2. Anyways many will bootcamp it.

I use Logic Pro a lot and need to decide if the i7 is worth the upgrade. Also, is it strange that the 15" and 17" MBPs come with i7 default and the iMacs are an additional upgrade? is there any particular reason for that?

Anything a bit more in depth than "they're faster" would be tremendously appreciated.

once again, any comments are greatly appreciated....any takers?

i5 is 4 core 4 thread and i7 is 4 core 8 thread. Basically at the same Ghz the i7 is going to be about 20% quicker when you're doing a bunch of stuff at the same time or using a program that utilizes 8 threads (usually most noticeable in video/audio rendering).

If you're on a budget IMO you're better off picking up an SSD over a CPU upgrade.

If I had to decide between the 3.4Ghz i7 ($2199) and the 2.7Ghz i5 with 1TB HDD & 256GB SSD ($2299) I'd go with the i5 + SSD every time.

EDIT: MBPs use the mobile version of the core i7. It's a different CPU.

So the 'M' in 'AMD Radeon HD 6750M' means it's the mobile version of the chip, correct? How does that compare these days?

It used to be that the iMac was mostly if not entirely made up of mobile components, but it seems like they've been sneaking in desktop parts of a while.

The mobile version of the GPU, however, even at 2GB, is the only thing making me nervous at this point. Is it gimped compared to a desktop? Or has mobile tech caught up with desktop, offering reasonably comparable performance while making accommodations to lessen heat generation?

and the best news for me at least (and for those who live in canada), is that for the first time, they cost the same in both US and Canada...finally . I has been waiting for this since the loonie is on par (or slightly over) the american dolar.

If there are any people who don't like shiny glassy things, it's worth noting. The fact that these people (including myself) keep harping on it means we are genuinely annoyed by the issue. We can't buy iMacs! That's annoying. We'll keep bugging you and Apple about it until something is done. Except for the reflective screen, the new iMacs seem pretty nice, but I can't use one.

The reflective screen issue is no less annoying than continued use of C2D processors in Mac minis, no backlit keyboards in MacBook Airs, crummy integrated GPUs in 13" MacBook Pros, no numeric keypad in the wireless keyboards, no xMac, etc.

I never said it made me happy, I just said that amounting to less than .1% of Apple's desktop installed base from last quarter and claiming to be a significant number is laughable. That's kind of indusputable. You can buy iMacs. You can buy an antiglare filter or a monitor hood if needed. You could setup your workspace properly to remove glare. There are any number of things you can do that makes the glossy display a non-issue. You can also let the Mini get upgraded to Sandy Bridge and buy a non-Apple display and call it a day.

The Mini upgrade will happen sometime in the near future, they're putting SAndy Bridge into the systems that sell best first. Maybe the ULV chips weren't available in large enough numbers for Apple to want to re-do the Mini earlier. Who knows. The xMac has been talked about since the Cube and is not happening. If you want numeric keypads on a wireless keyboard, there are any number of aftermarket options available. Apple doesn't include them b/c most people don't use them. I can agree w/you about the IGPU on the 13" MBP and the lack of backlighting on the MBA, but the MBA had poor battery life w/the last refresh as it is, the extra lighting would have probably impacted it even more. Apple isn't willing to reduce the battery life on the 13" MBP (and add extra heat to the mix as well) to have a discrete GPU. Every model from Apple will not suit everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRangers85

Can anyone give me any tips on comparing the i5 vs i7 processors?

I use Logic Pro a lot and need to decide if the i7 is worth the upgrade. Also, is it strange that the 15" and 17" MBPs come with i7 default and the iMacs are an additional updgrade? is there any particular reason for that?

The i5s don't have hyper threading turned on and the i7s do, so w/hyper threading, you are effectively doubling your core count. Something like Logic will benefit from more cores and the i& upgrade would be worth your money most likely. Also the reason why the i7 is a BTO option for the iMacs is that the i5 is more than enough computer for what most people are doing. You know, email, browsing, a few games. If you're doing heavy amounts of video or audio work, the extra cores (and beefing up RAM of course) will always be helpful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tipoo

Is the i7 in the 15 inch MBP faster than the i5 in the 21 inch iMac? Or are the laptop/desktop chips rated differently?

The i7 has 4 cores and 4 virtual cores and is rated at 300MHz less speed. The i5 only has 4 cores. The i7 will still smoke the i5 in any software situation where the program can make use of all cores, like video conversion

i5 is 4 core 4 thread and i7 is 4 core 8 thread. Basically at the same Ghz the i7 is going to be about 20% quicker when you're doing a bunch of stuff at the same time or using a program that utilizes 8 threads (usually most noticeable in video/audio rendering).

If you're on a budget IMO you're better off picking up an SSD over a CPU upgrade.

If I had to decide between the 3.4Ghz i7 ($2199) and the 2.7Ghz i5 with 1TB HDD & 256GB SSD ($2299) I'd go with the i5 + SSD every time.

EDIT: MBPs use the mobile version of the core i7. It's a different CPU.

many many thanks! I agree, for my purposes, it sounds like i'll be fine with the i5, I'm not a power user of Logic

yes, but the second thunderbolt isn't there for its latent display port capability.

Actually given how few thunderbolt accessories there currently are, that's one of the few things the second port is good for. In the future, I'm confident it will have lots of uses, but right now there isn't much you can use it for.

Very similar to the MBP upgrade. Faster GPU, graphics and ports but nothing much else...
A performance upgrade basically.

Yeah and??? It is a winning physical design that sells like crazy. So of course it's just going to be under the hood stuff

Quote:

Originally Posted by aplnub

No USB 3 and two Thunderbolts ports...

Thunderbolt is, by their claims, faster and it is something they don't have to license.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hamiltonrrwatch

The keyboard option with a numeric keypad is noticeably absent. So no more wired options

It was that way last go around as well.

Quote:

Still no matte screen, but with LED back lighting, I wonder if you could adjust the levels so that you don't notice the glare?

Where you place it in a room can also do wonders for the glare issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4miler

No matte antiglare screens on the new iMacs. If you need matte screens, there's something you can do - add your voice to 1,300+ petitions at http://macmatte.wordpress.com

Good luck with that. Apple is selling their machines like crazy. Until a major group like the studios come out and say that they would love to use iMacs for their Final Cut etc but they have to have matte screens, no amount of names on an easy to forge and pad online petition is going to do squat. The TV fanboys learned this when their petitions don't bring back their precious ratings failure shows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerseymac

Why is it that it costs $199.00 to have Aperture preinstalled when you can buy it from the App store for $79.99??

Easy, to discourage you from doing it. They want you to use the store. They make the same money with less labor on their side if you use the store. I'm actually surprised that they still have the preinstall in there at all.

[QUOTE=Tallest Skil; What reason does Apple have to benchmark beta software? That's nonsense.[/QUOTE]

I am not making anything out of my imagination. Remember that Portal 2 got released a few weeks ago. You could took some of your time and read the graphic section of the new iMac on Apple web site and find the very same info I pasted. Apple has beta tested hundreds of software titles in their own labs specially when they do not want to send the developer an unreleased machine. Remember how Apple is regarding undesired product leaks.
Then I place the link and read #2 at the button.http://www.apple.com/imac/performance.html

So true. Used to be Apple would have an event for their premier product, with Jobs talking about how these new machines are "screamers."

Now the Mac doesn't even rate the front page of the website. Very sad for those who need a real computer. I guess we are the minority, like the people who want matte screens.

Yes, the world is dominated by teenagers who want to tweet and text while strolling down the street, riding bikes and driving cars. And the only multitasking required is trying to see your content behind the reflection of your face.

A different era indeed.

As I pointed out earlier, it does have a spot on the front page, it just isn't the main image. When you look at how many iPhones or iPads they sell vs how many iMacs, it is clear where Apple's bread is buttered. There has also been a demand for the white iPhone since it was knocked off the release last summer. Why wouldn't they advertise it strongly?

So the 'M' in 'AMD Radeon HD 6750M' means it's the mobile version of the chip, correct? How does that compare these days?

It used to be that the iMac was mostly if not entirely made up of mobile components, but it seems like they've been sneaking in desktop parts of a while.

The mobile version of the GPU, however, even at 2GB, is the only thing making me nervous at this point. Is it gimped compared to a desktop? Or has mobile tech caught up with desktop, offering reasonably comparable performance while making accommodations to lessen heat generation?

Any guidance here would be extremely helpful.

Mobile GPUs are about one rung down from their desktop counterparts (name-wise). The 6970M, for example, is the same GPU as the desktop 6850, with 960 stream processors but a slightly lower clock speed. AMD and Nvidia both do this.

Mobile GPUs are about one rung down from their desktop counterparts (name-wise). The 6970M, for example, is the same GPU as the desktop 6850, with 960 stream processors but a slightly lower clock speed. AMD and Nvidia both do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefly7475

Performance seems to be around 50% to 75% of the desktop part.

It should be able to handle most modern games at lower resolutions and medium quality.

Wow, I had no idea the numbers were THAT low. It's not that I need a cutting edge machine, but being a generation behind for the money spent gives me pause. (Yes, yes, I know, welcome to Apple. Been a Mac user since 1994, I get how this works).

I use Logic Pro a lot and need to decide if the i7 is worth the upgrade. Also, is it strange that the 15" and 17" MBPs come with i7 default and the iMacs are an additional updgrade? is there any particular reason for that?

Anything a bit more in depth than "they're faster" would be tremendously appreciated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tipoo

If you're on a budget IMO you're better off picking up an SSD over a CPU upgrade.

...

EDIT: MBPs use the mobile version of the core i7. It's a different CPU.

I'll be curious to see the benchmarks. MacWorld will likely compare these new iMacs with the recent MBPs. I'll especially be interested to see how the mobile versions of the CPUs compare with the desktop version.

As for SSDs, I'd pick the faster CPU over the SSD because you can always add SSD later. Your stuck with the CPU for the life of the machine. Plus, you can get faster SSDs from third parties. Get the hard drive, and if/when you get an SSD, put the drive in an external enclosure for more storage or use as Time Machine backup disk.

Of course, it all depends on your usage and comfort level with upgrades. SSDs don't offer the capacity I'd need at affordable prices, so it's not really a viable option for me.

I never said it made me happy, I just said that amounting to less than .1% of Apple's desktop installed base from last quarter and claiming to be a significant number is laughable. That's kind of indusputable. You can buy iMacs. You can buy an antiglare filter or a monitor hood if needed. You could setup your workspace properly to remove glare. There are any number of things you can do that makes the glossy display a non-issue. You can also let the Mini get upgraded to Sandy Bridge and buy a non-Apple display and call it a day.

I disagree but "nobody cares."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSquirrel

The Mini upgrade will happen sometime in the near future, they're putting SAndy Bridge into the systems that sell best first. Maybe the ULV chips weren't available in large enough numbers for Apple to want to re-do the Mini earlier. Who knows. The xMac has been talked about since the Cube and is not happening. If you want numeric keypads on a wireless keyboard, there are any number of aftermarket options available. Apple doesn't include them b/c most people don't use them. I can agree w/you about the IGPU on the 13" MBP and the lack of backlighting on the MBA, but the MBA had poor battery life w/the last refresh as it is, the extra lighting would have probably impacted it even more. Apple isn't willing to reduce the battery life on the 13" MBP (and add extra heat to the mix as well) to have a discrete GPU. Every model from Apple will not suit everyone.

Thanks for your well-thought-out post.

Actually, none of these issues affect or annoy me as much as not being able to use/buy an iMac which could be Apple's best desktop computer. But beating a dead horse is no use.

Since the iMac was refreshed today it's only natural that the glossy display issue comes up. I'm finished whining about it. Apologies to any of you who are unable to just skip over such comments, which is what I do for subjects I don't care about.

Interesting how the iMac is advertised as great for watching movies. Is that what Apple thinks we do with computers now? That no one uses an iMac for content creation? It would explain their stubborn adherence to glossy screens.

I have a Samsung glossy LCD in the living room and it's great for watching movies. But does that automatically mean I want a glossy computer to do a spread sheet on? Or adjust color on a photo? Or make a movie on Final Cut? Or jam on GarageBand?

With all due respect to Apple, these are quad core machines with large RAM capacity. Isn't it a waste to spend this kind of money just to watch standard def DVD's or 720P video on a 27 inch screen at my desk? Is that what this computer is really for?

Why you think a glossy screen makes so much difference? I edit HD video with it, use a lot of garage band, amplitube, guitar rig 4, final cut studio. It can be a bit distracting at the start but after 3 years using it across several machines means nothing. Maybe for pixel retouch or other stuff on photoshop must be great but is not my thing. One of my customers use it with Auto Cad and they have 10 iMacs and never heard him or his designers complain about it.

Yeah these Mac noobies don't know anything about Feng shui or interior decorating. You are not supposed to sit with your back to the window. Rearrange your furniture properly and you won't have any glare.

Well said, Sol. I can get all the sarcasm and derision I want from my GF at home! I come here to get away from that.

You must get a lot of "sarcasm and derision" at home if this is where you come for your moment of zen!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna

Good luck with that. Apple is selling their machines like crazy. Until a major group like the studios come out and say that they would love to use iMacs for their Final Cut etc but they have to have matte screens, no amount of names on an easy to forge and pad online petition is going to do squat. The TV fanboys learned this when their petitions don't bring back their precious ratings failure shows.

For the record, a small but actual number of TV shows have been brought back (or picked up by other channels) on the basis of fan campaigns - tho' of course most haven't.

So true. Used to be Apple would have an event for their premier product, with Jobs talking about how these new machines are "screamers."

Now the Mac doesn't even rate the front page of the website. Very sad for those who need a real computer. I guess we are the minority, like the people who want matte screens.

Yes, the world is dominated by teenagers who want to tweet and text while strolling down the street, riding bikes and driving cars. And the only multitasking required is trying to see your content behind the reflection of your face.

A different era indeed.

As the Steve has said, there'll always be trucks around. And they'll probably get "truckier" as all the dilettantes who only need iDevices aren't around our PCs. So enjoy being a trucker. We're bad ass!!

As for SSDs, I'd pick the faster CPU over the SSD because you can always add SSD later. Your stuck with the CPU for the life of the machine. Plus, you can get faster SSDs from third parties. Get the hard drive, and if/when you get an SSD, put the drive in an external enclosure for more storage or use as Time Machine backup disk.

I guess for most the reason we want a SSD configuration is to (pre)install the OS and (some of) the applications on it for faster disk access performance (e.g. app loading time, etc.) Adding a SSD later as an external storage is kind of defeating the purpose.

And there are no spec with 8GB default Ram, adding memory actually means it is expensive even of you do it yourself, since you have to throw away both slot in order to get 8GB.

If you're not squeamish about getting into the guts of your iMac, you can order RAM from some third party place for considerably less than Apple's BTO price. You might also be able to get some money back for the original RAM.

If you're not squeamish about getting into the guts of your iMac, you can order RAM from some third party place for considerably less than Apple's BTO price. You might also be able to get some money back for the original RAM.

You should probably keep the old ram in case you need to take it in for service. If something is wrong under warranty and you don't have the original ram in it could be a problem exchanging it or servicing it at Apple.